Patriarch Sviatoslav of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church sent an address to Parliament Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn and Ukrainian deputies with a request to withdraw from consideration Bill 9690 on Making Alterations to Certain Laws of Ukraine (regarding transfer of objects of cultural heritage to religious organizations)....

You have been warned for 7 days for posting an entire article instead of the rule that you are to post a few sentences and the link. You have been around oc.net long enough to know this rule. -username! section moderator, I have also modified your post to fit within the rules.

Patriarch Sviatoslav of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church sent an address to Parliament Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn and Ukrainian deputies with a request to withdraw from consideration Bill 9690 on Making Alterations to Certain Laws of Ukraine (regarding transfer of objects of cultural heritage to religious organizations).

The head of the UGCC considers unacceptable the transfer of national shrines, which belonged to the unified Kyivan Church, to only one denomination, namely, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate.

“This way of response to the European recommendations regarding the restitution of church property is a distortion of the essence of restitution which envisages complex settlement of property problems for the sake of repairing the material harm done by the Godless regime,” reads the address, the Information Department of the UGCC reports.

Patriarch Sviatoslav warned in his letter that the transfer of the spiritual shrines of the Ukrainian nation “only to one denomination is a clear threat to the interdenominational peace and agreement which have been established in our state in the recent years.”

“Do the authors of the bill understand that by their initiative they are again pushing our Motherland into the whirlpool of the interdenominational (and, in this case, also interethnic) confrontation with unpredictable consequences?” asked the patriarch.

“In our opinion, the issue of the restitution of church property should be considered fully, transparently, from all the viewpoints and without prejudice by the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations representing 18 denominational trends and over 95% of Ukraine’s believers,” stressed the hierarch.

UOC-MP isn't a denomination. It is the continuation of that united Church of Kiev and All Rus'. It owned all the properties before the Bolsheviks confiscated them. It is the one to whom they should be returned.

This is very rich coming from a primate who ecclesial community just celebrated with great pomp the confiscation of the Churches of the Orthodox, that united Church of Kiev and All Rus'/Little Rus' and Galicia, and celebrated on the ground where they raised the Orthodox Cathedral to erect theirs (returned to Orthodox once the Habsburgs and Polish Republic no longer had Lviv in their grip; seized by this hierarch's correligionists before Kiev's authority could be established in the region with the fall of communism). They can have this back:

He can consider it unacceptable all he wants-like he considers it unacceptable to use the title of major-archbishop given him by his canons, and instead ignores all those canons of his and calls himself "Patriarch." His supreme pontiff hasn't rubberstamped his title inflation, his government is under no obligation to bow to his opinions.

The UOC-MP should consider pulling out of the "All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations" if Bill 9690 is withdrawn.

The UGCC has questionable claims to shrines in Galicia. It has absolutely NO claims, valid or otherwise, in Kiev and elsewhere, which the UGCC is coveting and squatting.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If the shrines belonged to the UGCC, they would be as quiet as a church mouse no doubt...

yes, the mouse that roared.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The reality of the situation on the ground is more complex than either the zealots of the Greek Catholic or the Orthodox 'sides' in this debate would have it.

History has a way of making 'right' the 'wrongs' which another generation perpetrated on the 'losing' side - be it religious or secular. For goodness sake, it is tough for an American to make these arguments about 'seizing' property in the 16th or 20th centuries in the face of American history and all of the broken treaties between the Federal Government and the Native Indian Tribes during the 19th century.

Things become what they now are and those of us living today have to come to grips with those realities. As I have said before, the Muslims view the loss of Cordoba in the same way we view the loss of Constantinople. Neither side is going to give the other city 'back.'

That being said, this Ukrainian debate is probably more about nationalism and less about religion than it may appear on the surface.

So the Bolsheviks didn't confiscate any properties from the UGCC? Yeah right.

Right. Officially there had been no Eastern Catholics in Russia.

What about Ukraine?

And there was an official Eastern Catholic Exarchate in Russia during the early Soviet Union, headed by Blessed Leonid Federov, who had his church's building and sacred vessels confiscated and who died in exile.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

So the Bolsheviks didn't confiscate any properties from the UGCC? Yeah right.

Right. Officially there had been no Eastern Catholics in Russia.

What about Ukraine?

And there was an official Eastern Catholic Exarchate in Russia during the early Soviet Union, headed by Blessed Leonid Federov, who had his church's building and sacred vessels confiscated and who died in exile.

Maybe he means a different "Russia", as in Russia, Ohio 45363 .

« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 11:24:52 AM by J Michael »

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

UOC-MP isn't a denomination. It is the continuation of that united Church of Kiev and All Rus'.

It is a continuation, albeit controlled by Moscow, just as the UGCC is such a continuation, but controlled by Rome. Just because the MP is a canonical Orthodox Church, that doesn't mean their lack of Respect for Ukraine is acceptable.

Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church ceased to exist in Russia in 1839 (with an exception of the Chełm Diocese which returned to Orthodoxy in 1875).

Ceased to exist as in presto-chango, all of sudden no more Eastern Rite Catholics whatsoever at all...., or were made illegal? There is a difference. Although on a nit-picky level if they were made illegal then "officially" they ceased to exist. Weren't there also a few of those nasty, pesky, heretical, schismatic *Roman* Catholics here and there in "Russia" over the years? I hear Ohio's full of them .

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

In the 1839 all of the Russian Eastern Catholic Churches, Hierarchs and Priests returned to the Orthodox Church (with an exception of the Chełm diocese that did the same 30 year later. Believers could choose whether to became Orthodox or Roman Catholic. Eastern Catholicism became illegal. There might have survived some Eastern Catholic believers but without clergy and immovables.

In the 1839 all of the Russian Eastern Catholic Churches, Hierarchs and Priests returned to the Orthodox Church (with an exception of the Chełm diocese that did the same 30 year later. Believers could choose whether to became Orthodox or Roman Catholic. Eastern Catholicism became illegal. There might have survived some Eastern Catholic believers but without clergy and immovables.

So I take it that Bl. Leonid Federov, his congregation and physical church building, as well as his official title within the Roman Catholic Church as Exarch of the Russian Catholic Church did not exist?

It doesn't matter if the state decided that Eastern Catholicism was legal or illegal. They existed during the Soviet era and that, my friend, is a matter of history.

As for Ukraine, since you want to split hairs, what about the UGCC that the Soviets confiscated in the Ukraine SSR?

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

In the 1839 all of the Russian Eastern Catholic Churches, Hierarchs and Priests returned to the Orthodox Church (with an exception of the Chełm diocese that did the same 30 year later. Believers could choose whether to became Orthodox or Roman Catholic. Eastern Catholicism became illegal. There might have survived some Eastern Catholic believers but without clergy and immovables.

Thank you for informing me--I do appreciate it, but do I detect a very slight note of intellectual snobbery ?

My lack of historical knowledge, in fact my lack of knowledge in general, is very well-known (see below my name to the left), profound, broadly based and indiscriminate. The U.S.A. is still a free country (well, sort of, anyway) so, yes, I'm free and welcome to make as big a fool of myself as I like by showing my ignorance--and I frequently succeed, too !! Unlike everyone else here . At my age I really don't care *too* much about that any longer.

Did I mention that discussing things with and asking questions of one's intellectual superiors is one way of increasing one's knowledge base? Besides, if one had to be tested on and reach a certain level of knowledge about any given area of discussion on this or any other board, I'm fairly certain the numbers here would dwindle considerably. But....what do I know?

I know I can be grating and smart-alecky at times (I'm one of those "works-in-progress"), but quite often when I ask a question, it truly is out of ignorance and a desire to learn.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The reality of the situation on the ground is more complex than either the zealots of the Greek Catholic or the Orthodox 'sides' in this debate would have it.

History has a way of making 'right' the 'wrongs' which another generation perpetrated on the 'losing' side - be it religious or secular. For goodness sake, it is tough for an American to make these arguments about 'seizing' property in the 16th or 20th centuries in the face of American history and all of the broken treaties between the Federal Government and the Native Indian Tribes during the 19th century.

Things become what they now are and those of us living today have to come to grips with those realities. As I have said before, the Muslims view the loss of Cordoba in the same way we view the loss of Constantinople.

Only problem is that the Muslims didn't create Cordoba either. It had been capital under the Romans of Hispania Ulterior Baetica, and the Muslims had to tear down the Cathedral to build their Grand Mosque. It had declined, btw, under the Muslims, somewhat like what the Crusaders did to Constantinople.

That being said, this Ukrainian debate is probably more about nationalism and less about religion than it may appear on the surface.

National orientation.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Why does the MP want to privatise Pochayiv? i dont see how the current state ownership would prevent them of using the premises.

Won't prevent others from using it either. Ever see how sharing works at the Church of the Resurrection/Holy Sepulcher? Not pretty.

For the Kievan caves, that would be bad enough, but UOC-MP has exclusive claims to Pochayiv. Even the persecutions of Poland's Revindication Campaigns didn't manage to reverse that. It spent just a century in the grip of the Vatican's Basilians, and the Czar waited for nearly four decades until he granted the wishes of those returning to Orthodoxy, and returned it to the Orthodox bishop of Volhynia, its true custodian.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In the 1839 all of the Russian Eastern Catholic Churches, Hierarchs and Priests returned to the Orthodox Church (with an exception of the Chełm diocese that did the same 30 year later. Believers could choose whether to became Orthodox or Roman Catholic. Eastern Catholicism became illegal. There might have survived some Eastern Catholic believers but without clergy and immovables.

Across the shifting borders of east Europe from the time of the unions to the end of the cold war many Eastern Christian faith communities were caught in the web of ever transient secular authority and ever changing borders ( as well as intellectual fashion -such as panslavism.) It is unfair to look at the jurisdictional status of believers in centuries, or even decades past, from the comfort of our current points of view. Today things are what they are - if we want to 'undo' what occurred from a historical context, there would be a heck of a lot of ethnic cleansing, mass, forced deportations of peoples and return of lands to one group or another displaced as a result of the vain glories of long dead secular and religious leadership.

And the idea that people could "freely 'choose' " to be Orthodox or Greek Catholic anywhere prior to the late twentieth century in any place other than the New World is, to say the least, quite debatable. That goes for Austro-Hungary, Russia, Poland etc....

That being said, this Ukrainian debate is probably more about nationalism and less about religion than it may appear on the surface.

National orientation.

Wowzer.....You and I actually agree on something ![/quote

That's unfair! We agree on more than you would let on! ]

Dearest podkarpatska--you and I agree on many things, and I consider you a brother-in-Christ. Isa and I, however....have hardly ever agreed on ***anything***--so when he posted that, with his ubiquitous signature pictures and maps, I was overjoyed to see we hold a view in common. God truly does work in mysterious ways!

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

In the 1839 all of the Russian Eastern Catholic Churches, Hierarchs and Priests returned to the Orthodox Church (with an exception of the Chełm diocese that did the same 30 year later. Believers could choose whether to became Orthodox or Roman Catholic. Eastern Catholicism became illegal. There might have survived some Eastern Catholic believers but without clergy and immovables.

Across the shifting borders of east Europe from the time of the unions to the end of the cold war many Eastern Christian faith communities were caught in the web of ever transient secular authority and ever changing borders ( as well as intellectual fashion -such as panslavism.) It is unfair to look at the jurisdictional status of believers in centuries, or even decades past, from the comfort of our current points of view. Today things are what they are - if we want to 'undo' what occurred from a historical context, there would be a heck of a lot of ethnic cleansing, mass, forced deportations of peoples and return of lands to one group or another displaced as a result of the vain glories of long dead secular and religious leadership.

And the idea that people could "freely 'choose' " to be Orthodox or Greek Catholic anywhere prior to the late twentieth century in any place other than the New World is, to say the least, quite debatable. That goes for Austro-Hungary, Russia, Poland etc....

+1

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

And the idea that people could "freely 'choose' " to be Orthodox or Greek Catholic anywhere prior to the late twentieth century in any place other than the New World is, to say the least, quite debatable. That goes for Austro-Hungary, Russia, Poland etc....

After the legalising Eastern Catholicism in tsarist Russia people were allowed to choose between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. That's the fact.

After the legalising Eastern Catholicism in tsarist Russia people were allowed to choose between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. That's the fact.

That is the truth, half of it anyways. Belarusians who wished to be Catholic had to adopt the Latin Rite as they were not allowed to use the Byzantine Rite and all the Byzantine churches had been given to the MP. When Russia lost western Belarus to Poland after WWI Belarusian Greek Catholic Parishes again formed. Russia annexed western Belarus at the beginning of WWII and the Servant of God, Metropolitan Andrei Sheptyptsky appointed the Servant of God, Fr Antoni Niemancewicz exarch of Belarus but he was martyred in 1943 and Greek Catholics were again outlawed. When the Iron Curtain fell Greek Catholics emerged from the catacombs and there are now about a dozen parishes.

Likewise in Russia, Greek Catholics emerged in Moscow and St.Petersburg.

UOC-MP isn't a denomination. It is the continuation of that united Church of Kiev and All Rus'.

It is a continuation, albeit controlled by Moscow, just as the UGCC is such a continuation, but controlled by Rome.

Not according to the Vatican: the UGCC's supreme pontiff Alexander VI told the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' that the UGCC claims, Met. Joseph Bolharynovich, that he was not Metropolitan of of Kiev and All Rus'/Little Rus'/Galicia as he was not consecrated by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, by which he meant the Latin Cardinal Giovanni Michele, not the real EP St. Nephon II and Joachim I.

Galicians themselves translated the Metropolitanate of Kiev and All Rus' to Moscow. The UGCC continues nothing started by Ss. GP Vladimir/Volodymyr and Met. Michael at Kiev. At best it can only claim to be an offshoot.

Not correct. Pochayiv actually was owned by the Orthodox Church of Poland. And there already was an UAOC in the USSR etc.

both of dubious canonicity. By the time the canonical status of the OCP was regularized, Pochayiv was back home with the UOC-MP, its proper owner.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Although on a nit-picky level if they were made illegal then "officially" they ceased to exist. Weren't there also a few of those nasty, pesky, heretical, schismatic *Roman* Catholics here and there in "Russia" over the years? I hear Ohio's full of them .

I've been to Ohio. Never been to Russia. Unless OH is in Russia now.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In the 1839 all of the Russian Eastern Catholic Churches, Hierarchs and Priests returned to the Orthodox Church (with an exception of the Chełm diocese that did the same 30 year later. Believers could choose whether to became Orthodox or Roman Catholic. Eastern Catholicism became illegal. There might have survived some Eastern Catholic believers but without clergy and immovables.

So I take it that Bl. Leonid Federov, his congregation and physical church building, as well as his official title within the Roman Catholic Church as Exarch of the Russian Catholic Church did not exist?

I am sure that the UGCC would be surprised that it is part of the "Russian Catholic Church."

As for Ukraine, since you want to split hairs, what about the UGCC that the Soviets confiscated in the Ukraine SSR?

It depends on whether the Polish King and Hapsburg Emperor confiscated it from the Orthodox for the UGCC.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The UGCC did have property stolen from the Communists, because that propert was Polish an Romanian until 1945. The Communist also stole property from the Greek Catholic eparchy of Munkachevo, in Czechoslovakia until 1945.

It also stole property from the Orthodox jurisdictions in the area of the 3 countries mentioned, when the respective areas were annexed to the USSR. Such was the case of Pochayiv, which belonged to the Orthodox Church of Poland. So, the MP has no business in the issue. It is true that before WWI, Pochayiv belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church (but not the MP, because the patriarchate was abolished). But even earlier, it was Greek Catholic for some time, and before that, it was Orthodox under Constantinople.

The UGCC did have property stolen from the Communists, because that propert was Polish an Romanian until 1945. The Communist also stole property from the Greek Catholic eparchy of Munkachevo, in Czechoslovakia until 1945.

It also stole property from the Orthodox jurisdictions in the area of the 3 countries mentioned, when the respective areas were annexed to the USSR. Such was the case of Pochayiv, which belonged to the Orthodox Church of Poland. So, the MP has no business in the issue. It is true that before WWI, Pochayiv belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church (but not the MP, because the patriarchate was abolished). But even earlier, it was Greek Catholic for some time, and before that, it was Orthodox under Constantinople.

So I would strongly suggest maintaining state ownership...

Thank you for a calming post on this subject. The emotions that EXIST in the hearts and the faith which resides in the souls of the faithful who live in the areas in question are the real issues of relevance here - not the arguable historical narrative - particularly the politically motivated actions of Tsars, Emperors, Popes and Bishops long reposed. From a pragmatic point of view, there are no easy answers as to how to deal with these thorny issues and resorts to 'legal' or even 'logical' arguments are not going to provide a complete answer - or one which will be accepted by the populace of the countries involved. No matter what occurs all will not be pleased.

The UGCC did have property stolen from the Communists, because that propert was Polish an Romanian until 1945. The Communist also stole property from the Greek Catholic eparchy of Munkachevo, in Czechoslovakia until 1945.

It also stole property from the Orthodox jurisdictions in the area of the 3 countries mentioned, when the respective areas were annexed to the USSR. Such was the case of Pochayiv, which belonged to the Orthodox Church of Poland. So, the MP has no business in the issue. It is true that before WWI, Pochayiv belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church (but not the MP, because the patriarchate was abolished). But even earlier, it was Greek Catholic for some time, and before that, it was Orthodox under Constantinople.

So I would strongly suggest maintaining state ownership...

...because possession is nine tenths of the law (that's an Americanism).

As I mentioned before, the canonical basis of the Orthodox Church of Poland's autocephaly was questionable, something not cured until 1948. In the meantime between 1945 and 1948, Pochayiv was very much the MP's business: that the EP stuck his nose in that business doesn't change that.

It has been Orthodox under the Patriarchate of Moscow's Metropolitanate of Kiev and All Ukraine for the last two decades, although the UOC-MP does not own/posses it.

It refused to go into schism with the UOC-KP. Hence it has never been Orthodox under the UOC-KP.

For the 44 years before that, it was undisputedly Orthodox under the Patriarchate of Moscow's Exarchate of Kiev and All Ukraine.

For the 25 years before that, it is disputed that it was Orthodox under the same Patriarchate of Moscow's Exarchate of Kiev and All Ukraine.

The UAOC tried to seize it with Bolshevik, then Nazi, help, but the Lavra resisted. Hence it never was Orthodox under the UAOC.

It was Orthodox for disputedly 25 years under the Orthodox Church of Poland.

Before that, it was Orthodox under the Russian Holy Governing Synod (in loco patriarchi) for undisputedly 91 years (and the 25 disputed years thereafter).

The Vatican occupied it before that for 110 years. It has stood for at least 485 years, perhaps 700. So the Vatican had it in its gripped for but a short time. Prior to that, it had been the publishing center of the opposition to the scheme of Brest:the press was taken, during the persecusions of the Polish Republic, to Jordanville for the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and now, as before, publishes for the Patriarchate of Moscow.

Before that, it was Orthodox under the Patriarchate of Moscow, for 34 years.

Before that, it was Orthodox under Constantinople's suffragan the Metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia and All Rus'/Little Rus' for 54 years.

Before that, it was Orthodox illegally (the UGCC alone have legal possession of all Orthodox properties in the PL Commonwealth) under Metropolitans of Kiev, Galicia and All Rus'/Little Rus' consecrated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem for Constantinople, who sought reunion with Moscow, for 12 years.

Before that, it was Orthodox illegally but under no on after the Metropolitan of Kiev's apostasy and submission to the Vatican and the bishops of Volhynia and Lutsk (the local bishops for Pochajiv) personally going to the Vatican to grovel and kiss their supreme pontiff's slipper, for 25 years.

Before that, it was Orthodox briefly under the Metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia and All Rus' consecrated in Vilnius by the EP after the elevation of the Metropolitinate of All Rus' into the Patriarchate of Moscow and the translation back of Kiev from Moscow to Constantinople, for six years, the Metropolitan of Kiev so consecrated promptly apostacizing and submitting to the Vatican.

Before that, it was Orthodox under the Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus', all 64 years of its recorded history to that point. For the 77 years of its prehistory it was Orthodox under the same autocephalous Metropolitan (even the Vatican's minions the King of Poland/Grand Duke of Lithuania managed to recognize and accept that), and the 149 years before that Orthodox under his autonomous predecessors in Vladimir/Moscow suffragans to Constantinople, and the legendary half century or so before that under his autonomous predecessors the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' sponsored by Galicia but based in Vladimir and other Russian (in the modern sense of the word) and cities/sees and under Constantinople.

Sooooo, that means it has never been Orthodox under the UAOC nor UOC-KP, the Orthodox Church of Poland claimed it for 25 years, it was in the grip of the UGCC for 110 and claimed by it for an additional 37 years, it was Orthodox under Constantinople 60 years in addition to 12 years illegally but canonically under Constantinople, and it has been Orthodox under Moscow for 263 years-including the last 181 with only 25 years disputed (but no longer)-of its recorded history and 149-199 of its legendary history Orthodox under Vladimir/Moscow when its primate was autonomous under Constantinople-moot, as Moscow isn't going to lose its autocephaly.

Not a hard call.

Of course, what it should be, and soon, is Orthodox under Kiev, an UOC-MP become autocephalous.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The UGCC did have property stolen from the Communists, because that propert was Polish an Romanian until 1945. The Communist also stole property from the Greek Catholic eparchy of Munkachevo, in Czechoslovakia until 1945.

It also stole property from the Orthodox jurisdictions in the area of the 3 countries mentioned, when the respective areas were annexed to the USSR. Such was the case of Pochayiv, which belonged to the Orthodox Church of Poland. So, the MP has no business in the issue. It is true that before WWI, Pochayiv belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church (but not the MP, because the patriarchate was abolished). But even earlier, it was Greek Catholic for some time, and before that, it was Orthodox under Constantinople.

So I would strongly suggest maintaining state ownership...

Thank you for a calming post on this subject. The emotions that EXIST in the hearts and the faith which resides in the souls of the faithful who live in the areas in question are the real issues of relevance here - not the arguable historical narrative - particularly the politically motivated actions of Tsars, Emperors, Popes and Bishops long reposed. From a pragmatic point of view, there are no easy answers as to how to deal with these thorny issues and resorts to 'legal' or even 'logical' arguments are not going to provide a complete answer - or one which will be accepted by the populace of the countries involved. No matter what occurs all will not be pleased.

As the resident Existentialist, I have to respectfully disagree. Not to choose, is to choose.

The state has no business running monasteries, but of course Tsars, Emperors, Kings, Grand Dukes, Nobles, Popes and Bishops build up monasteries, in material and immaterial ways, so they become involved.

This is not hard. In fact, it is quite easy.

The monastery refused to go into schism with the deposed metropolitan Filaret, whose UOC-KP is out of the running. Only if the UOC-KP became the canonical Church of All the Ukraine could an argument be made for it, as the Lavra has specifically rejected its "patriarch" and his following.

The monastery defied both Bolsheviks and Nazis-groups not known for taking defiance well-in resisting take over by the UAOC and hence those claiming its "succession" are out of the running. Only if the UAOC was recognized as the canonical Church of All the Ukraine could an argument be make for it, as the Lavra has specifically rejected this movement.

Pochajiv fought the scheme of Brest, although its two local bishops were the ones who personally went to Vatican to kiss its slipper in submission, and its most notable saint, St. Job of Pochajiv, made it into a center of Orthodox resistance to the imposition of the presurser of the UGCC, which, therefore, is out of the running. Even when it had succumbed after over a century of the war of attrition that the Vatican had waged against the Orthodox, and it was submitted the Vatican, its decline was reversed only by the private efforts of Count Potocki, who tried to get St. Job canonized by the Vatican. The Vatican rejected St. Job, and St. Job in Pochajiv continues to reject the Vatican. The Czar allowed the Vatican to continue its grip on Pochajiv for decades, with its Latinization and Polonization, as the surrounding people began the return to Orthodoxy, and the successor of the apostate bishop of Volodymyr asked for nearly a decade for the return of the monastery before the Czar allowed it, and the monks returned to Orthodoxy and made it a center for those fleeing the Vatican for the Orthodox Faith of their Fathers not only in the Russian Empire, but those in the domains of the Habsburgs as well. Their heirs, the Second Polish Republic who took up the cause of Latinization, Polonization, and submission to the Vatican, and the Lavra resisted them as before. Only if the Orthodox accept Pastor Aeternus and submit to the Vatican, or Ukraine undo what the Soviet Union did and give Galicia back to Poland, could an argument be made for the UGCC, as the Lavra's history, what makes it a national shrine, is precisely its rejection of the Vatican to which the UGCC roams about all Ukraine and Russia as the lure.

That leaves the canonical Orthodox Metropolitinate of Kiev, the canonical Orthodox Church of All Ukraine, the Faith of the majority of Ukrainians now and throughout all their history since their baptism, with whom the monastery now communes, and has for nearly the last two centuries, and its first recorded two centuries and all its nearly four centuries of prehistory, with only a century of the discreted UGCC inbetween.

Like I said, not a hard case to make.

And if the Lavra wanted to leave the UOC-MP, it would not have been hard. According to the stats the 121 parishes of the UOC (MP) are surrounded by 210 of the UOC KP, 290 of UAOC and 777 of the UGCC and 86 others of the Vatican. Outnumbered nearly 8 to 1 by the Vatican, over 4 to 1 by the non-canonical Orthodox, the Lavra remains in the UOC-MP because it wants to be there. The state has to make the argument why it should not be allowed it rights to remain and be so recognized.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If the shrines belonged to the UGCC, they would be as quiet as a church mouse no doubt...

Indeed:

Quote

BASILIAN FATHER: UKRAINIAN GREEK CATHOLICS HAVE MORE GROUNDS TO PRIVATIZE POCHATIV MONASTERY THAN UOC-MOSCOW PATRIARCHATEGreek Catholic monks of the Order of St Basil the Great expressed dissatisfaction with the possibility of privatization of the Pochayiv Monastery by the Moscow Patriarchate. They call Bill 9690, which envisages the transfer of the Kyiv Cave and Pochayiv Monasteries to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, provocative. The Basilian monks state that they have more grounds to claim the Pochayiv Monastery than the monks of the Moscow Patriarchate....

According to the priest, his association of monks made an unsuccessful attempt to regain the Pochayiv Monastery after the UGCC had emerged from the underground....

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The former head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Lubomyr (Husar) told journalists that is against the transfer of the Pochayiv and Kyiv Cave Monasteries to a particular denomination, a correspondent of the Tyznia reports.

“Places like the Kyiv or Pochayiv Monastery should be open to all Christians… One cannot assign them to anyone, transfer to anyone or privatize them. Or to say that it belongs to a particular denomination. It belongs to the Ukrainian nation, Ukrainian Church, even though, unfortunately, we are divided. Perhaps, we would get united again there as we stand next to each other,” said the archbishop...

Did His Beatitude think so when he seized St. George Cathedral in Lviv?

I'm sure His Beatitude has someone in mind for the Ukrainians to stand behind, while they are "stand[ing] next to each other"

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth